View Full Version : FBI Facial Recognition to go Hot 2014...
ETA: Title should read "FBI Facial Recognition to go Nation wide/hot 2014"
http://www.geekosystem.com/fbi-face-recognition-2014/
http://www.newsmax.com/US/fbi-facial-recognition-technology/2012/09/10/id/451302
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-fbis-dumping-1-billion-on-facial-tech-that-fails-nearly-10-percent-of-the-time-2012-9
The potential future world we all might be living in (Soon) gets more f'd up each day it seems.
Why is this system needed? At 1 billion clams what will be the ROI?
What is it with our gummints constant need to track us more and more? Seriously, why do we need to be so easily tracked everywhere we go?
How realistic is it that they will have this online/functioning in 2014?
A billion dollar system when we are 30-50 trillion in the hole; sounds fiscally responsible to me...
When will these intrusions become too much for us to take?
So here in a few years time the FBI/DHS/NSA is going to have 30,000+ drones in the skies spying constantly, tons of satellites specifically for spying and facial recognition software out in public following anyones every move...WHAT IS THIS ALL FOR?
Seriously, WTF? The azimuth we are on is more and more troubling each day, with each new pice of legislation passsed it seems we take giant leaps backwards and sell off our soverignty bit by bit- where are we headed?
I thought we lived in the land of the free. More like land of the fleeting at this point.
I get so infuriated with this stuff; I am paying to enslave myself!!!!!! WTF?!?! What F'd up time we live in; on the verge of bankruptcy and we are allocating funds to spy on ourselves...
Ludicrous!
And I know; "It is only to help catch terrorists/criminals; if you are a law abiding citizen you need not worry..." and all that BS...
With all the laws on the books and "terrorist" interpretation being wide open; I think we could all fall into the category of "Criminal/terrorist" these days if someone in the right agency with the right position wanted us to badly enough...
Thoughts, opinions?
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-10-12, 16:42
I am paying to enslave myself!!!!!! WTF?!?!
That is so true.
The other question is, with everyone over the age of 12 carrying a smart phone, why do you even need this? If someone over the age of 18 doesn't have a phone on them, that is almost cause for concern. ;)
They use the arguement that it is no different than if there was a cop sitting there, but the important distinction is that we don't have a cop on every corner, and we never did. Our laws are based on the fact that most infractions are never even noticed never mind reported. When you can prosecute every single offense- or more likely prosecute every single offense of people that the govt doesn't like....
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WmjxXsFNOW0/TntzWiHSV9I/AAAAAAAAAT8/xgQXDYLxzKE/s1600/minorityreport.jpg
The government must enslave us in order to protect us.
what movie was that from SteyrAUG ?
I seem to remember seeing it but cant place it ? or maybe I am thinking of another flick ?
Honu-
I believe that is from "minority report".
Orwell was so right it's beyond scary.
Orwell was so right it's beyond scary.
Indeed. Each one of us carries a "telescreen" with us day in and day out.
I wanna know where we are going- we as a nation and as individuals; with all of this legislation/technology BS.
I feel like I am living in a science fiction/dystopian nightmare at times...
:mad:
what movie was that from SteyrAUG ?
I seem to remember seeing it but cant place it ? or maybe I am thinking of another flick ?
Minority Report
GeorgiaBoy
09-10-12, 18:19
Orwell was so right it's beyond scary.
I'd say Huxley more so. The but there is a hint of Orwellian in there, too.
Senator Rand Paul said on the radio today that there are 34 armed federal agencies, including a SWAT team for the Department of Agriculture.
http://rense.com/1.imagesH/image001%2046.jpg
That's one reason I carry a 5 year old flip phone. I don't need internet access every minute of the day. Hell, having the phone itself is a pain in the ass at times. I believe the capability for tracking from smart phones is beyond our comprehension & only going to get worse.
WHAT IS THIS ALL FOR?
You know the answer to that.
I'd say Huxley more so. The but there is a hint of Orwellian in there, too.
To summarize:
In Huxley's world, the people are controlled through the application of pleasure
In Orwell's world, they are controlled through the application of pain
Both are concurrently happening today. Keep the majority drugged, entertained and happy. Keep the awoken minority sidelned, silent and fearful of retribution
That's one reason I carry a 5 year old flip phone. I don't need internet access every minute of the day. Hell, having the phone itself is a pain in the ass at times. I believe the capability for tracking from smart phones is beyond our comprehension & only going to get worse.
By law, all phones since about 2004 must have an "emergency location" feature. Yours can be tracked.
Not only can they be tracked, but all phones can be dialed into without the owners' consent or knowledge, and used as a one-way microphone. With a warrant, obviously.
To summarize:
In Huxley's world, the people are controlled through the application of pleasure
In Orwell's world, they are controlled through the application of pain
Both are concurrently happening today. Keep the majority drugged, entertained and happy. Keep the awoken minority sidelned, silent and fearful of retribution
By law, all phones since about 2004 must have an "emergency location" feature. Yours can be tracked.
Not only can they be tracked, but all phones can be dialed into without the owners' consent or knowledge, and used as a one-way microphone. With a warrant, obviously.
Even old outdated "Not so smart" phones can be dialed into?
Sounds like its time to invest in ear muffs and Groucho glasses.
To summarize:
In Huxley's world, the people are controlled through the application of pleasure
In Orwell's world, they are controlled through the application of pain
Both are concurrently happening today. Keep the majority drugged, entertained and happy. Keep the awoken minority sidelned, silent and fearful of retribution
And they can't even get that right. If everyone had their own pole dancer I probably wouldn't watch the news and get pissed off so much.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/07/mobile-data-transparency/all/
Moose-Knuckle
09-11-12, 02:53
Orwell was so right it's beyond scary.
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/BigBrother.jpg
To summarize:
In Huxley's world, the people are controlled through the application of pleasure
In Orwell's world, they are controlled through the application of pain
Additionally there is also the slow and deliberate application of ignorance via media and the more and more frequent elimination of literature and filmography.
(EG: Blockbuster has already been tweaking movies for years now to meet certain time and/or content parameters)
Once all converted to digital and digital video, serious manipulation can begin as there will no longer be originals to reference.
Eventually classics like The Oddyssey will be condensed down to 15-20 pages of leetspeak and abbreviations, Gone With The Wind (movie version) turned into a 20 minute YouTube clip, and people will whine that they are both too long and boring because they go over thier media conditioned attention span by 10 minutes.
Super condensed Cliff's notes will be looked upon as the ideal reading material.
(but only in those that also have audio versions because reding am r hard)
Add Bradbury to the list:
"Ooh, mommy look. Firemen. Mommy, there's going to be a fire"
Fahrenheit 451
GeorgiaBoy
09-11-12, 08:53
I look at this in few ways:
1) All of this "big brother watching" stems from our use of the internet, cell phones, and modern technology in general. If you lived about 20 years behind, still used just a landline, didn't have a internet connection, and had a car without a GPS in it, you would be fairly free from all this "in-depth" "tracking/surveillance" stuff. Of course, the exception would now be drone surveillance or traffic cameras (and now FBI facial recognition)
2) There are too many people just like me out there. There are too many people out there in general. To many citizens, to few cops and other law enforcement. We still have the power of numbers in this whole situation...
3) There are over 330 million cell phones in use in the U.S. alone. 1.3 million "snooping requests". If "big brother" is really trying to watch us he better step it up, only watching .4% of cell phones is not necessarily something to brag about. In contrast, a little over 2.5% of the US population is in some way incarcerated.
http://www.keeptalkinggreece.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/tin-foil-hat.jpg
I am going to wear Silly Putty on my face to throw the software off.
GeorgiaBoy
09-11-12, 10:26
I am going to wear Silly Putty on my face to throw the software off.
Just wear a mask in public.
Soon enough though, masks will be banned.
QuietShootr
09-11-12, 10:57
http://www.keeptalkinggreece.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/tin-foil-hat.jpg
So you think it's tinfoil-y to NOT want to have your every move monitored and stored?
VooDoo6Actual
09-11-12, 11:02
You got to love the idiocy of it all.
Commiefornia Jerry Brown sign new law allowing Women Muslims to cover their faces while FBI spends BooKoo $ on facial recognition software.
Jerry Brown signs law protecting Sikhs, Muslims, from workplace bias
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2012/09/brown-signs-law-protecting-sikhs-muslims.html
So who's culpable when the first legit women terrorist detonates w/ her face gear on ? Who's to say it's a women or even a Muslim ?
Like to see how that's going to work w/ facial recognition software. A alleged woman w/ a face Veil & or these listed below et al.....
Hijaab and Khimar: The least conservative form of woman's veil is the Hijaab also known as Khimar, Dilbant, or Jilbant. Hijaab comes from the Arabic word for curtain or cover and according to Islamic scholarship, the Hijaab is given the wider meaning of modesty and privacy. It is a piece of cloth that covers all or most of the woman's hair and circles down to the chin. If a woman wears only a Hijaab, her face would still be clearly visible, although her hair (and usually her ears) would be hidden from view.
Abaya or Chador: The next piece of cloth that is of a similarly-conservative nature to the Hijaab is the Abaya also known as the Chador. The difference between a Hijaab and an Abaya is that an Abaya extends to the rest of the body. (In a sense an Abaya is a Hijaab-dress combination). This garment is commonly worn by Iranian women. Saudi women also wear an Abaya but compliment it with a Niqab.
Niqab: This is a piece of cloth that covers the face, at least everything beneath the eyes. In many instances the Niqab continues all of the way up to the hair line. In those cases, a slit is cut for the woman's eyes, but her face remains concealed. Niqabs are worn almost exclusively with Hijaabs and Abayas. If a woman (in theory) were to only wear a niqab, her hair would and chin would exposed as the Niqab only covers the front of the face.
Yashmak: This is a piece of cloth which combines the lower half of a Niqab (i.e. the part below the eyes) with a partial Hijaab so that most of the hair is covered. This headcovering used to be popular in Egypt, but is now being phased out for Hijaab and Hijaab-Niqab wearing.
Burqa: This is a garment modeled on the Abaya, but instead of leaving the face exposed, the Burqa covers the entire face. The upper part of the face is replaced with a mesh so that the woman can see out, but otherwise the woman cannot be seen or see out from beneath the fabric.
Congratulations Gov. Brown, you have now created a new method for legit Tango's male/female/LBGT/Midgets/LBGT Midgets et al to conceal Gov. Brown....
Apparently the cranial vault challenged Govenor did not learn from France's mistakes etc.
Billion plus dollar system thwarted by ......
Brilliant, just brilliant
Gawd please, stop the Earth's rotation for a moment I want off this nut house planet...
QuietShootr
09-11-12, 11:20
You got to love the idiocy of it all.
Commiefornia Jerry Brown sign new law allowing Women Muslims to cover their faces while FBI spends BooKoo $ on facial recognition software.
Jerry Brown signs law protecting Sikhs, Muslims, from workplace bias
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2012/09/brown-signs-law-protecting-sikhs-muslims.html
So who's culpable when the first legit women terrorist detonates w/ her face gear on ? Who's to say it's a women or even a Muslim ?
Like to see how that's going to work w/ facial recognition software. A alleged woman w/ a face Veil & or these listed below et al.....
Hijaab and Khimar: The least conservative form of woman's veil is the Hijaab also known as Khimar, Dilbant, or Jilbant. Hijaab comes from the Arabic word for curtain or cover and according to Islamic scholarship, the Hijaab is given the wider meaning of modesty and privacy. It is a piece of cloth that covers all or most of the woman's hair and circles down to the chin. If a woman wears only a Hijaab, her face would still be clearly visible, although her hair (and usually her ears) would be hidden from view.
Abaya or Chador: The next piece of cloth that is of a similarly-conservative nature to the Hijaab is the Abaya also known as the Chador. The difference between a Hijaab and an Abaya is that an Abaya extends to the rest of the body. (In a sense an Abaya is a Hijaab-dress combination). This garment is commonly worn by Iranian women. Saudi women also wear an Abaya but compliment it with a Niqab.
Niqab: This is a piece of cloth that covers the face, at least everything beneath the eyes. In many instances the Niqab continues all of the way up to the hair line. In those cases, a slit is cut for the woman's eyes, but her face remains concealed. Niqabs are worn almost exclusively with Hijaabs and Abayas. If a woman (in theory) were to only wear a niqab, her hair would and chin would exposed as the Niqab only covers the front of the face.
Yashmak: This is a piece of cloth which combines the lower half of a Niqab (i.e. the part below the eyes) with a partial Hijaab so that most of the hair is covered. This headcovering used to be popular in Egypt, but is now being phased out for Hijaab and Hijaab-Niqab wearing.
Burqa: This is a garment modeled on the Abaya, but instead of leaving the face exposed, the Burqa covers the entire face. The upper part of the face is replaced with a mesh so that the woman can see out, but otherwise the woman cannot be seen or see out from beneath the fabric.
Congratulations, you have now created a new method for legit Tango's male/female/LBGT/Midgets/LBGT Midgets et al to conceal Gov. Brown....
Brilliant....just brilliant
You know what's really slick about that? They can't even stop you to ask you if you're a Muslim, or even a woman. Can you imagine the shitstorm that would ensue the first time they did that to a Muslim woman?
I see a whole new business opportunity here for concealing headwear and garments for the concerned citizen.
VooDoo6Actual
09-11-12, 11:38
You know what's really slick about that? They can't even stop you to ask you if you're a Muslim, or even a woman. Can you imagine the shitstorm that would ensue the first time they did that to a Muslim woman?
I see a whole new business opportunity here for concealing headwear and garments for the concerned citizen.
You bet. He/she/it/LGBT/Midget LBGT et al was a Muslim by day, Christian by night etc.
Traffic Cameras w/ driver's identity etc.... Bus Stops, Railway Stations, Airports, Maritime ports, major ports of ingress/egress, people proclaiming different faiths as reason to disguise identities etc.
Next stop, more Bio-Metrics & RFID chips All Aboard !
Fun ain't it.....
So you think it's tinfoil-y to NOT want to have your every move monitored and stored?
No. I think it's tinfoil-y to think that:
1) Any system fielded will be that good - people routinely overestimate the govt and its abilities to do things like this. Too many people confuse hollywood (Bourne movies as an example) with what is really out there.
2) Any system fielded will be abused so quickly and easily by the govt that the system must have some nefarious use in mind when designed.
3) You are so important that the govt must be watching/recording/tracking you.
4) You have any expectation of privacy in public. If you are standing on a street corner, I can take photos/video of you and it's perfectly legal. You can't do anything to stop it whether I am a LEO, a private citizen, p.i., paparazzi, artsy photog, surveyor, traffic camera, etc. If you don't want to be captured on digital or other media, the only solution is to stay on private property.
5) There won't be measures in place to prevent abuse. If the public knew how many hurdles and obstacles there are before a govt agent can engage in certain surveillance techniques, a lot of this conspiracy crap would die down permanently. This applies to both the legal pre-requisites that are appropriate and the general inefficiency of the govt.
I would be more concerned that the proper safeguards are included in any such system to prevent China from hacking in and using it against us. Our govt is too busy dealing with ACTUAL threats to worry about what the private citizens are buying at a coffee shop or reading on their smart phones.
Every time I hear someone express concern that our govt is out to get them, monitor them, etc. I immediately conclude they are either 1) up to something illegal/inappropriate. 2) a few sandwiches shy of a picnic and wearing a tinfoil hat.
They get tired of using entrapment?
QuietShootr
09-11-12, 12:47
No. I think it's tinfoil-y to think that:
1) Any system fielded will be that good - people routinely overestimate the govt and its abilities to do things like this. Too many people confuse hollywood (Bourne movies as an example) with what is really out there.
2) Any system fielded will be abused so quickly and easily by the govt that the system must have some nefarious use in mind when designed.
3) You are so important that the govt must be watching/recording/tracking you.
4) You have any expectation of privacy in public. If you are standing on a street corner, I can take photos/video of you and it's perfectly legal. You can't do anything to stop it whether I am a LEO, a private citizen, p.i., paparazzi, artsy photog, surveyor, traffic camera, etc. If you don't want to be captured on digital or other media, the only solution is to stay on private property.
5) There won't be measures in place to prevent abuse. If the public knew how many hurdles and obstacles there are before a govt agent can engage in certain surveillance techniques, a lot of this conspiracy crap would die down permanently. This applies to both the legal pre-requisites that are appropriate and the general inefficiency of the govt.
I would be more concerned that the proper safeguards are included in any such system to prevent China from hacking in and using it against us. Our govt is too busy dealing with ACTUAL threats to worry about what the private citizens are buying at a coffee shop or reading on their smart phones.
Every time I hear someone express concern that our govt is out to get them, monitor them, etc. I immediately conclude they are either 1) up to something illegal/inappropriate. 2) a few sandwiches shy of a picnic and wearing a tinfoil hat.
So, what department do you work for, Officer?
VooDoo6Actual
09-11-12, 13:38
People have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Just because I don't feel that my personal beliefs, feelings should be anybody's business other than whom I choose to associate with does not mean that there is any criminality or any component thereof.
Not only is that the wrong assumption, it wastes time & resources, it's illegal w/o a warrant & should be. This whole current let certain people in power get away w/ their behavior(s), transgressions, moral interpitude, fraud, collusion, crony politics is exactly the WRONG way to lead anybody. Leadership has always shown best by leading by example not the exception etc. It will fail on that trajectory, bank on it.
What happened to innocent until PROVEN in court of law/jury of peers are you guilty ?
The comments above tell me how far out we are at this point.
Where does it stop ?
Apparently people don't read history or understand what the founding fathers set it this way for.
These are not the foundations for which our country was formulated & paid for in blood. Freedom does not equate to unwanted, un-warrented surveillance by any entity. As another LEO stated here if you don't like it go somewhere else. That is not an acceptable answer either. I was born here & stayed here for reasons of the Freedom's/liberties granted to us. All of sudden drastic changes regarding our freedom's does not make that the righteous path either.
I can see why we're imploding. I have seen literally countless abuses of color & authority of law or ROL & it is not getting better, it's escalating getting worse.. I would call that a clue.
This whole change the paradigm to a Statist/Crony Capitalism/Oligarchy/Socialist/Hitler-esk/Marxist state (I don't even think they know yet what it is exactly they want other than change, contain & control no mater what it takes, what it costs, how many people die, get beat up, abused, civil/constitutional rights denied on etc) from the principles & concepts THIS country was founded on is not going to work out in the long run no doubt.
I never knew a US Veteran that served under socialism or fought for it.
No. I think it's tinfoil-y to think that:
1) Any system fielded will be that good - people routinely overestimate the govt and its abilities to do things like this. Too many people confuse hollywood (Bourne movies as an example) with what is really out there.
2) Any system fielded will be abused so quickly and easily by the govt that the system must have some nefarious use in mind when designed.
3) You are so important that the govt must be watching/recording/tracking you.
4) You have any expectation of privacy in public. If you are standing on a street corner, I can take photos/video of you and it's perfectly legal. You can't do anything to stop it whether I am a LEO, a private citizen, p.i., paparazzi, artsy photog, surveyor, traffic camera, etc. If you don't want to be captured on digital or other media, the only solution is to stay on private property.
5) There won't be measures in place to prevent abuse. If the public knew how many hurdles and obstacles there are before a govt agent can engage in certain surveillance techniques, a lot of this conspiracy crap would die down permanently. This applies to both the legal pre-requisites that are appropriate and the general inefficiency of the govt.
I would be more concerned that the proper safeguards are included in any such system to prevent China from hacking in and using it against us. Our govt is too busy dealing with ACTUAL threats to worry about what the private citizens are buying at a coffee shop or reading on their smart phones.
Every time I hear someone express concern that our govt is out to get them, monitor them, etc. I immediately conclude they are either 1) up to something illegal/inappropriate. 2) a few sandwiches shy of a picnic and wearing a tinfoil hat.
Bolded:
No one expressed concern about their gummint being "Out to get them"; I am expressing concern for this new facial recognition system, the debt it will generate and the potential for abuse on many levels.
So anyone who questions the motives of their gummint; who
believes that systems/technology like this could be potentially damaging is either a tinfoiler or a criminal to you huh? WOW, what a load of BS.
Please answer me these questions three:
1) Why are you okay with spending a billion dollars on this type of system when we are in debt that is basically insurmountable and getting worse every second?
2) Why would they need to implement this type of system in the first place? What are we citizens getting out of the deal other than being on camera for Big brother to monitor more so? Especially since you seem to think it won't be effective and could potentially be used against us by our enemies?
3) Why do you label me (and other concerned posters here) as either tin-foilers or a criminals- simply for espousing sincere concern regarding a technology/system meant to increase our gummints ability to monitor/track and control us?
There is a big difference between "Expecting privacy in public..." and our gummint being able to monitor/track anyone, anywhere at anytime; including on private property and inside our homes.
Why do we need drones flying 24/7 over every state monitoring citizens? (One of my jobs is in construction and from the RFP's I've seen recently- our gummint is currently bidding on/construcing about 15-25 TUAV's-Tactical Unmanned Areal Vehicle Hangers/launching faclities" nationwide; why all this spending to monitor us constantly? What is the rationalization behind spending money we don't have to monitor everyone more effectively? These projects cost a ton of money! 5-15 million each- on our dime...)
Why do we need cameras on every street corner?
Why do we need facial recognition software to track citizens nationwide?
This gummint is beyond out of control, and thinking this new FBI facial recognition system is anything but a step in the wrong direction is ludicrous to me; I cannot fathom a reality where I would want more gummint control, more gummint monitoring, more gummint spending, anymore gummint at all...
So what positive outcome do you think we are going to get out of this billion dollar system we cannot afford to build? Seriously.
No. I think it's tinfoil-y to think that:
1) Any system fielded will be that good - people routinely overestimate the govt and its abilities to do things like this. Too many people confuse hollywood (Bourne movies as an example) with what is really out there.
2) Any system fielded will be abused so quickly and easily by the govt that the system must have some nefarious use in mind when designed.
3) You are so important that the govt must be watching/recording/tracking you.
4) You have any expectation of privacy in public. If you are standing on a street corner, I can take photos/video of you and it's perfectly legal. You can't do anything to stop it whether I am a LEO, a private citizen, p.i., paparazzi, artsy photog, surveyor, traffic camera, etc. If you don't want to be captured on digital or other media, the only solution is to stay on private property.
5) There won't be measures in place to prevent abuse. If the public knew how many hurdles and obstacles there are before a govt agent can engage in certain surveillance techniques, a lot of this conspiracy crap would die down permanently. This applies to both the legal pre-requisites that are appropriate and the general inefficiency of the govt.
I would be more concerned that the proper safeguards are included in any such system to prevent China from hacking in and using it against us. Our govt is too busy dealing with ACTUAL threats to worry about what the private citizens are buying at a coffee shop or reading on their smart phones.
Every time I hear someone express concern that our govt is out to get them, monitor them, etc. I immediately conclude they are either 1) up to something illegal/inappropriate. 2) a few sandwiches shy of a picnic and wearing a tinfoil hat.
1) Why are you okay with spending a billion dollars on this type of system when we are in debt that is basically insurmountable and getting worse every second?
2) Why would they need to implement this type of system in the first place? What are we citizens getting out of the deal other than being on camera for Big brother to monitor more so? Especially since you seem to think it won't be effective and could potentially be used against us by our enemies?
3) Why do you label me (and other concerned posters here) as either tin-foilers or a criminals- simply for espousing sincere concern regarding a technology/system meant to increase our gummints ability to monitor/track and control us?
The answer to all three questions is the same: He is a statist who thinks the individual exists to serve the state.
Moose-Knuckle
09-11-12, 16:55
I'm going to start wearing a burqa and if I'm stopped I'm just going to say that I'm a transvestite who converted to Islam. Then start screaming how my civil liberties are being violated by the great satan.
I'm going to start wearing a burqa and if I'm stopped I'm just going to say that I'm a transvestite who converted to Islam. Then start screaming how my civil liberties are being violated by the great satan.
Your forgot the most important part.
Get the ACLU to help you GET $$$$$$$$$$ as a result.
Make sure and record it and put it on youtube.
The government must enslave us in order to protect us.
for the children :mad:
I look at this in few ways:
1) All of this "big brother watching" stems from our use of the internet, cell phones, and modern technology in general. If you lived about 20 years behind, still used just a landline, didn't have a internet connection, and had a car without a GPS in it, you would be fairly free from all this "in-depth" "tracking/surveillance" stuff. Of course, the exception would now be drone surveillance or traffic cameras (and now FBI facial recognition).
The 4th Amendment provides for changes in technology. Just because we have new ways of corresponding doesn't mean they're outside the scope of personal privacy.
"Persons, houses, papers and effects."
I don't wish to live in a country where I'm considered guilty of a crime just because I exist, and therefore must be watched constantly. It used to be that government needed a reason to place an individual under surveillance.
A government that is wicked will always try to keep a watchful eye on their good citizens, because the good people will cause trouble by shining a light onto their dark activities.
Every time I hear someone express concern that our govt is out to get them, monitor them, etc. I immediately conclude they are either 1) up to something illegal/inappropriate. 2) a few sandwiches shy of a picnic and wearing a tinfoil hat.
Yes! The only people who have a complaint about being watched by the authorities are criminals! In fact, that is an admission of guilt. Why don't police use that as probable cause and start arresting all the anti- "big brother" types? Hooray for fascism
What the hell is wrong with you?
QuietShootr
09-12-12, 00:24
The 4th Amendment provides for changes in technology. Just because we have new ways of corresponding doesn't mean they're outside the scope of personal privacy.
"Persons, houses, papers and effects."
I don't wish to live in a country where I'm considered guilty of a crime just because I exist, and therefore must be watched constantly. It used to be that government needed a reason to place an individual under surveillance.
A government that is wicked will always try to keep a watchful eye on their good citizens, because the good people will cause trouble by shining a light onto their dark activities.
Yes! The only people who have a complaint about being watched by the authorities are criminals! In fact, that is an admission of guilt. Why don't police use that as probable cause and start arresting all the anti- "big brother" types? Hooray for fascism
What the hell is wrong with you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWY69mTr5gM&feature=related
FF to 2:43.
[QUOTE=THCDDM4;1391981]
The answer to all three questions is the same: He is a statist who thinks the individual exists to serve the state.
If one were to sum it to the core he does though he may not be fully cognizant of it.
The crime fighting results of mass-surveillance
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8219022.stm
Oh boy…* I’m far from being a statist.* I have no interest in the govt controlling our social lives, economic lives, and in fact have always been a Reaganist.* I prefer a smaller govt and don’t want govt intrusion in our lives.* That said, the govt has to be able to protect us.* Since we seem stuck in an asymmetrical conflict for now, the bad guys will continue to sneak across the border and hit us from within.* We’d be fools to not have any mechanism that helps catch threats that have already made it inside.* Especially since the govt seems content to do nothing about our borders.
My issue with the kind of comments we see in this thread (referencing Minority Report, etc.) is the automatic assumption that any new program has a sinister use designed to neuter us as law abiding citizens going about our daily lives.* I can tell you from my 11 plus years in active military service, the govt is not efficient enough to do half the things people give it credit for doing.* I can also assure you that the oath I took as a member of the military, and the oath I took as a LEO are to the Constitution.* I don’t know a single person in either community who doesn’t take it very seriously when we invade someone’s privacy – and that’s when we do so legally, with court authorization and more than enough probable cause.*
This new system is not going to track or label anyone.* The way FR works, is that it helps locate similar looking people after you upload the target image.* Unlike what you see in the movies or on TV, it doesn’t scan everyone and match you to your DL.* If there is a criminal/terrorist and you have a photo of his face, you upload it and if it sees someone similar it will show it as a possible match.* There won’t be any data attached to the image it shows the operator.* It’s just a photo of some person in a public setting.* The operator decides if it is a match – not the computer.* So the only way this FR program will track YOU, is if you are on a most wanted list.* Besides, from what limited interactions I’ve had, FR doesn’t impress me at all.*
Regarding privacy… your reasonable expectation goes away when you walk public streets.* Why do you think the paparazzi can endlessly harass celebrities as they go about their daily lives?* If your trash is at the curb, I can come by and take it.* If it’s next to your house, I need a warrant to take it.* I think too many people don’t understand how privacy laws work.* Having cameras on the street corners doesn’t bother me.* It will help speed up solving investigations and catching evil-doers more quickly, making everyone safer.* And if FR does find a possible match for a most wanted person, narrowing the search down to a city – I’m okay with that.* It saves time and resources, and hopefully gets the dirtbag in cuffs before he can do more harm.*
I’m not sure how you think the govt is tracking us in our homes…* or why they would want to…
OP, regarding your question about cost – no I don’t believe the FR program is worth it.* But then, nobody making that decision asked me.* There are a LOT of govt programs I don’t agree with.* That’s why I make sure to vote.* We have an administration spending money we don’t have.* They have increased the debt by $5 Trillion in 3.5yrs!!* That’s absurd!* I don’t know Romeny’s position on FR software, but I know he is our best chance for an economic recovery.* **
To VD6: There is nothing wrong with me.* I never suggested anyone who objects to FR be arrested.* If that’s how you interpreted my comments, then I feel sorry for you as your paranoia has affected your reading comprehension.* My conclusion that people afraid of FR having something to hide is merely my opinion based on their behavior.* Kind of how I conclude anyone with a 2012 Obama sticker on their car to be one of the dumbest mofo’s on the planet.* *Having FR cameras fielded doesn’t give away any freedom or rights.* The only way a person would lose his freedom from such a system is if he is wanted for something criminal.*
In closing, anyone genuinely concerned about a govt taking away our rights and freedoms should be focusing time and energy on state legislatures in CA, MA, IL, NJ, and NY.* Those are the places that truly threaten our way of life on a daily basis.* From the 2nd Amendment to giving rights to illegals… the crumbling of our values is happening much more quickly at the state level IMO.*
GeorgiaBoy
09-12-12, 17:00
El Cid, what are your thoughts on cell phone surveillance? The ability for the govt. to pretty much tap in the location, call history, text history, ect. of anyone and everyone? Warrantless?
What about financial monitoring? The FBI can monitor just about anyone with a credit card and see their transactions in real time without ever needing a warrant. Is this "ok" to you?
Moose-Knuckle
09-12-12, 17:56
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/MeatsheepintruckSM.jpg
That's one reason I carry a 5 year old flip phone. I don't need internet access every minute of the day. Hell, having the phone itself is a pain in the ass at times. I believe the capability for tracking from smart phones is beyond our comprehension & only going to get worse.
i work in the cellular industry, and trust me when i say that it dosent matter what kind of phone you have, they can track in down to a few feet.
VooDoo6Actual
09-12-12, 18:46
El Cid
To VD6: There is nothing wrong with me.* I never suggested anyone who objects to FR be arrested.* If that’s how you interpreted my comments, then I feel sorry for you as your paranoia has affected your reading comprehension.* My conclusion that people afraid of FR having something to hide is merely my opinion based on their behavior.* Kind of how I conclude anyone with a 2012 Obama sticker on their car to be one of the dumbest mofo’s on the planet.* *Having FR cameras fielded doesn’t give away any freedom or rights.* The only way a person would lose his freedom from such a system is if he is wanted for something criminal.*
has affected your reading comprehension.*
You got the wrong guy who wrote that. Looks like your READING COMPREHENSION is what's at issue. Funny how quick your are to make an ad hominem attack on my reading comprehension & you were in fact the guilty party as I made no reference to you or ad hominem comment regarding you whatsoever.
That was here post # 38 :
Why don't police use that as probable cause and start arresting all the anti- "big brother" types? Hooray for fascism
What the hell is wrong with you?
Wowsers....
El Cid
You got the wrong guy who wrote that. Looks like your READING COMPREHENSION is what's at issue. Funny how quick your are to make an ad hominem attack on my reading comprehension & you were in fact the guilty party as I made no reference to you or ad hominem comment regarding you whatsoever.
That was here post # 38 :
Wowsers....
Lol! I've got nothing. You are correct. Guilty as charged. Sorry. :secret:
Georgiaboy, I don't support what you describe. But I would like to hear of any specific examples of such behavior in the CONUS. To get what you describe for a telephone may not require a "warrant" but it still requires a court order signed by a judge or a subpoena.
I can't speak to financials as I don't have experience with that but I would want different levels of approval the same way the phones require.
VooDoo6Actual
09-12-12, 19:31
Lol! I've got nothing. You are correct. Guilty as charged. Sorry. :secret:
You Sir, are a Gent & have my respect for that honesty. We are GTG.
You Sir, are a Gent & have my respect for that honesty. We are GTG.
Thanks. Ditto. Do we have a smilie eating a shoe/foot? lol!
Belmont31R
09-12-12, 21:44
Oh boy…* I’m far from being a statist.* I have no interest in the govt controlling our social lives, economic lives, and in fact have always been a Reaganist.* I prefer a smaller govt and don’t want govt intrusion in our lives.* That said, the govt has to be able to protect us.* Since we seem stuck in an asymmetrical conflict for now, the bad guys will continue to sneak across the border and hit us from within.* We’d be fools to not have any mechanism that helps catch threats that have already made it inside.* Especially since the govt seems content to do nothing about our borders.
My issue with the kind of comments we see in this thread (referencing Minority Report, etc.) is the automatic assumption that any new program has a sinister use designed to neuter us as law abiding citizens going about our daily lives.* I can tell you from my 11 plus years in active military service, the govt is not efficient enough to do half the things people give it credit for doing.* I can also assure you that the oath I took as a member of the military, and the oath I took as a LEO are to the Constitution.* I don’t know a single person in either community who doesn’t take it very seriously when we invade someone’s privacy – and that’s when we do so legally, with court authorization and more than enough probable cause.*
This new system is not going to track or label anyone.* The way FR works, is that it helps locate similar looking people after you upload the target image.* Unlike what you see in the movies or on TV, it doesn’t scan everyone and match you to your DL.* If there is a criminal/terrorist and you have a photo of his face, you upload it and if it sees someone similar it will show it as a possible match.* There won’t be any data attached to the image it shows the operator.* It’s just a photo of some person in a public setting.* The operator decides if it is a match – not the computer.* So the only way this FR program will track YOU, is if you are on a most wanted list.* Besides, from what limited interactions I’ve had, FR doesn’t impress me at all.*
Regarding privacy… your reasonable expectation goes away when you walk public streets.* Why do you think the paparazzi can endlessly harass celebrities as they go about their daily lives?* If your trash is at the curb, I can come by and take it.* If it’s next to your house, I need a warrant to take it.* I think too many people don’t understand how privacy laws work.* Having cameras on the street corners doesn’t bother me.* It will help speed up solving investigations and catching evil-doers more quickly, making everyone safer.* And if FR does find a possible match for a most wanted person, narrowing the search down to a city – I’m okay with that.* It saves time and resources, and hopefully gets the dirtbag in cuffs before he can do more harm.*
I’m not sure how you think the govt is tracking us in our homes…* or why they would want to…
OP, regarding your question about cost – no I don’t believe the FR program is worth it.* But then, nobody making that decision asked me.* There are a LOT of govt programs I don’t agree with.* That’s why I make sure to vote.* We have an administration spending money we don’t have.* They have increased the debt by $5 Trillion in 3.5yrs!!* That’s absurd!* I don’t know Romeny’s position on FR software, but I know he is our best chance for an economic recovery.* **
To VD6: There is nothing wrong with me.* I never suggested anyone who objects to FR be arrested.* If that’s how you interpreted my comments, then I feel sorry for you as your paranoia has affected your reading comprehension.* My conclusion that people afraid of FR having something to hide is merely my opinion based on their behavior.* Kind of how I conclude anyone with a 2012 Obama sticker on their car to be one of the dumbest mofo’s on the planet.* *Having FR cameras fielded doesn’t give away any freedom or rights.* The only way a person would lose his freedom from such a system is if he is wanted for something criminal.*
In closing, anyone genuinely concerned about a govt taking away our rights and freedoms should be focusing time and energy on state legislatures in CA, MA, IL, NJ, and NY.* Those are the places that truly threaten our way of life on a daily basis.* From the 2nd Amendment to giving rights to illegals… the crumbling of our values is happening much more quickly at the state level IMO.*
lol wait until the ATF shows up at your door with a copy of your mil records, photos of your relatives and copies of your 4473's. I was in the mil for 6 years, and while I'd generally say the gov is inefficient when they want to do something they can do it. That includes combing through paper copies of dealer records, and knocking on your door with all kinds of personal info.
Oh boy…* I’m far from being a statist.* I have no interest in the govt controlling our social lives, economic lives, and in fact have always been a Reaganist.* I prefer a smaller govt and don’t want govt intrusion in our lives.* That said, the govt has to be able to protect us.* Since we seem stuck in an asymmetrical conflict for now, the bad guys will continue to sneak across the border and hit us from within.* We’d be fools to not have any mechanism that helps catch threats that have already made it inside.* Especially since the govt seems content to do nothing about our borders.
My issue with the kind of comments we see in this thread (referencing Minority Report, etc.) is the automatic assumption that any new program has a sinister use designed to neuter us as law abiding citizens going about our daily lives.* I can tell you from my 11 plus years in active military service, the govt is not efficient enough to do half the things people give it credit for doing.* I can also assure you that the oath I took as a member of the military, and the oath I took as a LEO are to the Constitution.* I don’t know a single person in either community who doesn’t take it very seriously when we invade someone’s privacy – and that’s when we do so legally, with court authorization and more than enough probable cause.*
This new system is not going to track or label anyone.* The way FR works, is that it helps locate similar looking people after you upload the target image.* Unlike what you see in the movies or on TV, it doesn’t scan everyone and match you to your DL.* If there is a criminal/terrorist and you have a photo of his face, you upload it and if it sees someone similar it will show it as a possible match.* There won’t be any data attached to the image it shows the operator.* It’s just a photo of some person in a public setting.* The operator decides if it is a match – not the computer.* So the only way this FR program will track YOU, is if you are on a most wanted list.* Besides, from what limited interactions I’ve had, FR doesn’t impress me at all.*
Regarding privacy… your reasonable expectation goes away when you walk public streets.* Why do you think the paparazzi can endlessly harass celebrities as they go about their daily lives?* If your trash is at the curb, I can come by and take it.* If it’s next to your house, I need a warrant to take it.* I think too many people don’t understand how privacy laws work.* Having cameras on the street corners doesn’t bother me.* It will help speed up solving investigations and catching evil-doers more quickly, making everyone safer.* And if FR does find a possible match for a most wanted person, narrowing the search down to a city – I’m okay with that.* It saves time and resources, and hopefully gets the dirtbag in cuffs before he can do more harm.*
I’m not sure how you think the govt is tracking us in our homes…* or why they would want to…
OP, regarding your question about cost – no I don’t believe the FR program is worth it.* But then, nobody making that decision asked me.* There are a LOT of govt programs I don’t agree with.* That’s why I make sure to vote.* We have an administration spending money we don’t have.* They have increased the debt by $5 Trillion in 3.5yrs!!* That’s absurd!* I don’t know Romeny’s position on FR software, but I know he is our best chance for an economic recovery.* **
To VD6: There is nothing wrong with me.* I never suggested anyone who objects to FR be arrested.* If that’s how you interpreted my comments, then I feel sorry for you as your paranoia has affected your reading comprehension.* My conclusion that people afraid of FR having something to hide is merely my opinion based on their behavior.* Kind of how I conclude anyone with a 2012 Obama sticker on their car to be one of the dumbest mofo’s on the planet.* *Having FR cameras fielded doesn’t give away any freedom or rights.* The only way a person would lose his freedom from such a system is if he is wanted for something criminal.*
In closing, anyone genuinely concerned about a govt taking away our rights and freedoms should be focusing time and energy on state legislatures in CA, MA, IL, NJ, and NY.* Those are the places that truly threaten our way of life on a daily basis.* From the 2nd Amendment to giving rights to illegals… the crumbling of our values is happening much more quickly at the state level IMO.*
My argument is that DHS seems to be throwing the labels of criminal, terrorist, and extremist around very haphazardly lately. And I'm one of those they'd consider an extremist. I've never been arrested for anything, but because of my beliefs, I get that label.
I'm all for catching baddies. But we better make damn sure we don't also include people we disagree with ideologically.
This, as most, technology has a double edge. Once it's in place everywhere it would be all too easy to sniff out enemies of the state. Ask yourself this: what could hitler have accomplished with FR cameras and GPS tracking and email interception?
Google: Marine Brandon Raub... Tinfoil and nothing to worry about my ass. Plenty of other examples are out there...
QuietShootr
09-13-12, 09:09
I have a really easy method of separating the wheat from the chaff in these arguments. I'm going to set up a filter so that any post containing the words "tinfoil" or "paranoia" go straight to the ignore folder. Only an asshole would use those words in 2012, and I have no interest in reading letters from an asshole.
VooDoo6Actual
09-13-12, 10:11
My argument is that DHS seems to be throwing the labels of criminal, terrorist, and extremist around very haphazardly lately. And I'm one of those they'd consider an extremist. I've never been arrested for anything, but because of my beliefs, I get that label.
I'm all for catching baddies. But we better make damn sure we don't also include people we disagree with ideologically.
This, as most, technology has a double edge. Once it's in place everywhere it would be all too easy to sniff out enemies of the state. Ask yourself this: what could hitler have accomplished with FR cameras and GPS tracking and email interception?
+1 this
I have a really easy method of separating the wheat from the chaff in these arguments. I'm going to set up a filter so that any post containing the words "tinfoil" or "paranoia" go straight to the ignore folder. Only an asshole would use those words in 2012, and I have no interest in reading letters from an asshole.
+1 this
i work in the cellular industry, and trust me when i say that it dosent matter what kind of phone you have, they can track in down to a few feet.
That is why I duct tape my cell phone to the underside of a semi once in a while, to see who might chase it. :sarcastic:
(Thanks for the info.)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.